The International Cricket Council (ICC) is celebrating 100 years of its existence in 2009. It celebrated this occasion by bringing out a list of all time greatest batsmen ever to have played cricket. But the list has left all the cricket lovers bewildered and confused. A lot of them are actually very angry. Reason, batsmen like Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara have failed to make even to the top 20 of this list. A whole generation of cricket lovers has grown up watching these greats play, and therefore, are left puzzled at this strange omission.

Well, one can claim that Indians are anyway very emotional about anything connected to cricket. They take it personally if a demi-god like Tendulkar is put down in this manner. Well, that is true! Yet there is more to this outrage than pure emotion. Just take a look at the Little Master' batting figures:

Tests:

Matches   Innings   Runs    Average    SR   50s  100s  Catches

    156          256         12429       54.27     --       41     51     100

One Dayers:

Matches     Innings    Runs   Average    SR     50s   100s  Catches

    419            409         16422     44.27      85.46   42      90     126

If Sachin Tendulkar cannot make it to the Top 20 despite these figures, one wonders what else will.

Let us have a close look at this "what else". I mean, let us have a look at some of the parameters that the ICC says it has considered:

1. Total number of runs scored
2. Overall strength of the team
3. "Quality" of the opposite team (e.g., defeating Australia will mean more points than defeating Bangladesh)
4. "Quality of the bowling attack of the opponents (very similar to #3 above)
5. Weightage to fourth innings performance
6. Contribution to team ( That is if a Tendulkar century figured in a match which India lost, it will mean lesser points compared to a Hayden century which won the match for Australia. In other words, the batsman has to figure in winning causes)
7. Runs scored at 'away' venues will carry more weightage than runs scored at 'home'.
8. The final
9. The final result of the series will also matter.

These are the basic parameters over which these ranking have been prepared. So, even if Tendulkar batted prodigiously over the period, he has scored low since India did not win quite often during this period. On the other hand, a player like Mathew Hayden is ranked 10th on the list since he played well AND Australia won at least 2 out of every 3 games played during this period (a winning rate of more than 66%). Australi also won a great nimber of series during this period. In fact, they were undefeated since 1992, till the recent loss to South Africa.

In response to the huge criticism from all quarters, ICC came out with a clarification. I must admit it sounds quite lame! Of course, you can say that is a Tendulkar fan speaking, but I don't mind! And frankly, I think there is something amiss with the list, no matter what ICC says. The clarification from ICC goes something like this:

Tall peaks are not always better than long plateaus as true greatness must include protracted excellence...the list does not by itself rank those players in terms of true greatness...The rankings give an indication of how players peaked during their careers, but do not give a full picture of those players' level of consistency or longevity in the game.

For example, a batsman or a bowler who averages around 700 rating points for most of his career apart from a purple patch where he shoots up to 900 points before dropping down again may be ranked higher on the all-time ratings. But that does not mean he should necessarily be considered to be better than a player who hovered around the 850 mark for his entire career.

Even the above explanation fails to address the issue. Obviously, if the ICC had indeed followed what it says it has followed, it is highly unlikely that Tendulkar wouldn't have made the list. Those who follow cricket at any level will know that if players like Tendulkar, Lara and Dravid are ranked way lower than the likes of Hayden, Sangakkara and Michael Hussey in any sort of ranking, there is something wrong with the list!